"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Sunday, May 1, 2022

Andrew Van Buren, the cowardly, dishonest, alcohol-loving and DESPERATELY GREEDY "breath of fresh air" in Delaware County (NY) judicial elections

In April 2022 a new judicial candidate has announced of his run for the seat of Delaware County (NY) County/Family/Surrogate's court judge, a position that pays $210,000 a year.

Andrew Van Buren.

I have explained in my earlier articles on this blog why you won't hear from currently practicing attorneys anything negative about this judicial candidate.

So, I will oblige - because, after seeing this ridiculously dishonest piece of self-advertising by Andrew Van Buren in The Walton Reporter,

I cannot and will not remain silent.  Voters have a right to know who and what this candidate is.

I know this candidate since 1999, I know him through social settings (he used my husband as his mentor until he switched to become Judge Carl F. Becker's messenger boy), I worked with him on the same cases as an attorney, and I know him as a dishonest and mean drunk who has no place on the bench.

Delaware County has known enough dishonest judges and enough dishonest mean drunks on the bench without Van Buren be added to this cohort.

It is true that Van Buren - same as the other candidate, John Hubbard - has an extensive litigation experience, and has his share of cases that he won, like any lawyer does.

But, a County Court judge in Delaware County is a multibench judge, and his main caseload will be in Family Court where he will rule as a sole fact-finder, without a jury, determining the fate of people's custody to children and in cases where people's custody of children, employment and a vast range of other rights are implicated, child abuse and neglect proceedings.

A Family Court judge has a tremendous power, and must be even-tempered, and not prone to petty vengeance.  That is not who Andrew Van Buren is.

1.  The coward who sells friends for money

"A breath of fresh air" is a phrase Andrew Van Buren likes to use.

He used it characterizing me once, in an interesting setting.

He lived in my husband's home while going to law school.

My husband helped his family member a lot.

My husband was mentoring Van Buren and teaching him trial skills.  Van Buren was calling my husband frequently for - free - consultations, which were always given, just to set a background of relationships with our family.

Van Buren recommended me to the licensing authorities to be admitted for the practice of law.

Then my practice of law started.

I was in the courtroom of Judge Carl F. Becker, it was sometime in 2009.

I was representing a client in a child neglect case.  I have made a motion to recuse Becker from presiding over the case as an attorney who represented the Petitioner for 27 years and will rely on his personal out-of-court knowledge and not the evidence presented, in assessing credibility of his personal friends.

Becker denied the motion, I continued to make objections in court.

Becker told me "close your mouth, Mrs. Neroni". 

I stood up and objected against Becker treating me in such a manner and moved to recuse for actual bias against me that will reflect on my client.

Andrew Van Buren was one of attorneys present in these proceedings.

He remained silent, looking into his desk, head down.

After court, he caught up with me outside of the courthouse and told me that 
  • I am "a breath of fresh air", supposedly much needed for the County, and that, 
  • as to my motion to recuse Becker as having represented the local DSS for 27 years before coming to the bench, "everybody knows it, but nobody says it".
To that, Van Buren added - but, "don't burn your bridges, Tanya".

I did not realize at that time that it was a threat, and a threat communicated from Becker.  I still considered Van Buren at that time not just a colleague, but a family friend.

Little did I know that Andrew Van Buren, to survive financially and get assignments in Family Court, has become a messenger boy for that same Judge Carl F. Becker.

In 2011, Andrew Van Buren came to the house of his mentor of many years, my husband, bringing to him a personal threat of criminal prosecution from Judge Becker, a completely bogus threat.  I was present when he voiced that threat to my husband - "if you don't do this and that, I will have you criminally prosecuted."

Note that Becker was not a county DA at that time.  Northrup (Becker's friend) was.  So Becker could not possibly "have" anybody criminally prosecuted, unless his friend Northrup would go along with his request for fabrication.

Note that in 2009, after I have made that motion to recuse Becker, Becker used his other corrupt friend, DSS Commissioner Moon, to fabricate a child neglect case against my husband and myself, trying to hurt our young child and us, prosecuted by a yet another Becker's friend, Porter Kirkwood, who also ran for the judicial position with Becker's endorsement.

So, Becker by that time has ALREADY fabricated a case with the help of another friend, a child neglect case, against us (which may have resulted also in criminal charges had it played out as Becker wanted it to).

We won it - after over a year in litigation.

Even the child's assigned counsel (out of Binghamton) told us that it was "small town politics", and supported us in fighting it.

DSS/Moon has fired a young attorney who rebelled against this fabrication as a political case, later settled and had that attorney move away across the state.

Note that BEFORE that threat, I have asked the current judicial candidate and then Chief ADA John Hubbard to criminally prosecute Becker for being an impostor and not a judge and for forging documents relating to his election in March of 2011.

Hubbard did not tell me that he was Becker's prior law partner who bought Becker's law practice and law office and was put into the ADA position by Becker, but refused to prosecute him.

Note that in May of 2011, Hubbard, instead, threatened my husband "not to burn bridges" (exactly as Van Buren threatened me in 2009, before Becker fabricated a child neglect case against us with his friend Moon).

That was when my husband filed an assigned appeal in People v Carbone, raising the issue of corruption of Becker and Northrup (having a blind man sign, without knowing, a waiver of civil rights litigation against Becker and Northrup for extrajudicial confiscation of his money and car).  My husband did not take that appeal back and was disbarred, based on bogus claims.

Note that at the end of June, 2011, I have SUED Becker in state court on behalf of a 3rd party, my husband and myself.

Andrew Van Buren knew all of that.  Because we told him this information, as a longtime family friend.

I wonder how much of it Van Buren communicated directly to Becker, in exchange for assignments in family and criminal court.

And, knowing all of that, he came into his mentor's home in July of 2011 bearing a threat from Becker that Becker will fabricate a criminal charge against my husband.  Van Buren told us directly that it was Becker's request he was carrying out.

He did not tell the judge that he will not be serving as his messenger boy.

He did not tell the judge that it is illegal to threaten a person who just sued you and whose wife just asked to criminally prosecute you as an impostor, with a yet another fabrication - after Moon's fabrication failed.

He did not tell the judge to bring his threats that had nothing to do with his judicial duties - on his own.

He caved in and worked as a messenger boy for the corrupt judge.

As a contemptible coward that he is.

Because this was his Judas price to get assignments from Becker, at $75 an hour, in criminal and Family Court cases.

But that was not all.

2. Deliberate deception of voters

The next year, in 2012, when Becker ran for re-election, Van Buren, knowing full well, who and what Becker is, wrote THIS:

Knowing that Becker - VICIOUSLY - avenges criticism of his misconduct, Van Buren preferred to DECEIVE Delaware County voters by falsely praising a judge he knew was a criminal.

"In my experience, Judge Becker gives attorneys and litigants, alike, an opportunity to be heard (even when the time for doing so is limited).  His decisions are fair, well-reasoned, and thoroughly researched.  His sentencing decisions reflect the interests of the community and also a measure of compassion for criminal defendants".

Van Buren said that, knowing that Becker was a mean petty drunk who was the most reversed judge, probably, in the Delaware County's history, here is the list of just some of his reversals.

Van Buren knew that Becker shut down attorneys' objections and did not let them make their arguments in court.

He knew that Becker DID NOT research his cases - that's why he was the most-reversed judge.

He knew that Becker's sentencing decisions served the career and financial interests of his own and of his friends Northrup, Moon and (then-County Attorney) Spinney, and nobody else's.

Yet, Van Buren knew that he will not be disciplined for FALSE PRAISE - only for criticism of a judge, no matter how fair.

And - HE LIED TO VOTERS, lied with authority, based on his years of experience appearing in front of Becker.

So, Van Buren IS the one who arranged, through his DELIBERATE DECEPTION OF VOTERS, for saddling the County residents with another term of 10 years of Becker's tyranny (good that the "fair and reasonable" Becker ran from the office in 2015 chased by the FBI, the New York State Commission for judicial conduct and the State Comptroller's office).

3. Disorderly conduct arrest

Van Buren's unruly behavior was reported back in 2002 when he was arrested for disorderly conduct and littering in front of his client's house.

4.  Dishonesty with clients, attorneys and courts and GREED, GREED, GREED again

Greed Case # 1.  Extorting attorney fees from a cancer patient and victim of his client's stone theft

Sometime in the early 2000s, when I have just got married to a Delaware County resident, attorney Frederick J. Neroni, and came to live there, my husband had an interesting case against Andrew Van Buren's client.

The case was well publicized at that time, and I am sure many people who lived in the area at the time would remember it.

A woman (my husband's client) was diagnosed with cancer and came to live in our area, charmed by its peace and tranquility.

Well, Andrew Van Buren's client interfered with that piece and tranquility by starting to steal stones from a historical stone wall on her property.

What was even more atrocious was that Andrew Van Buren moved for a summary judgment against my husband's client, asking the court to award his client's (thief's) attorney fees owed to Van Buren - against the victim of the theft, the property owner and a cancer patient who his client robbed.

I do remember that the presiding judge, I believe, it was Michael V. Coccoma, was so upset about what Van Buren did that he

1/ granted to my husband's client a REVERSE summary judgment ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION, when my husband was not even asking for it; and

2/ banned Andrew Van Buren from his courtroom.

I remember how Andrew Van Buren called my husband and left a drunk insulting message on our answering machine about it.

The only reason he did what he did was GREED, he wanted his fee no matter what and no matter who he was going to squeeze that fee from.

Greed Case # 2.   Desperately trying to get paid for representing opponent of Van Buren's own former client in the same case

Children custody trials are emotional, drawn-out, involve a lot of detailed evidence and a lot of witnesses, and courts usually give plenty of time to prepare for such trials - because of all the above.

Imagine the situation.

I have a custody trial for a client scheduled for the next day.

Suddenly I receive a call from Andrew Van Buren telling me that he represents the opponent in that case now.

That was NOT how the law requires attorneys to get substituted.

There was an attorney of record in that case (attorney Zilbert, as far as I remember), substitution of attorneys must be done - by law - through a NOTARIZED consent to change attorneys, which Andrew Van Buren DID NOT obtain from the opposing party and DID NOT file with the court.

Quite recently before that Judge Burns (presiding judge in the custody case) chastised in court attorney Renee Albaugh for claiming to be attorney of record in a divorce case and making motions in that case, while failing to file a proper substitution of attorneys and, thus, not being attorney of record.

So, Andrew Van Buren was NOT an attorney of record in the case at the time he claimed he was representing my client's opponent.

Anyway, I call my client and I notify him that a claim is made that Andrew Van Buren will be representing his opponent at the tomorrow's trial - and he calls me back immediately, quite upset, telling me that Andrew Van Buren was HIS attorney in the SAME case (custody cases take a long time, sometimes years).

I do believe it was greed - Andrew Van Buren charges an arm and a leg for representation at trials, and he needed money, so he pretended that he "forgot" that he is opposing his own former client in the same case where he represented him on the same issue.

Van Buren dishonestly took the case out of greed, hoping that it will slide through, and nobody will remember.

Well, his client did remember, and objected, and I wrote to Andrew Van Buren on my client's behalf.

Here is our e-mail exchange (I've blacked out the names of clients).  

The year was 2013 - after Andrew Van Buren has shown us his true colors as the corrupt Judge Becker's racketeer messenger boy.

What was wrong with Andrew Van Buren asking for an adjournment?

Everything was wrong about it.

First of all, he was not yet an attorney of record in the case - never was, and can't ask the court for anything.

Second, he cannot be an attorney of record for the opponent since he represented my client in the same case before, and can't ask the court for anything that is against my client's best interests.

As I said above, there was plenty of time given by the court for trial preparation, there was PLENTY of work done by me preparing for the trial, work that was already billed, per hour, to my client, and my client very reasonably objected to any adjournment at the 11th hour, especially for the bogus reason that his opponent fired previous attorney and hired HIS OWN INITIAL ATTORNEY, and then, after his attorney's conflict of interest was revealed, claimed an adjournment that she was not otherwise entitled to.

A good trick, wasn't it?

Here is what I wrote to Van Buren on the subject:

And that is when Andrew Van Buren EXPLODED - consider THAT piece for an assessment of this judicial candidate's "judicial temperament":

He was obviously afraid that I will sue him on behalf of his client - which his client had an obvious right to do, and it would not have been a "malicious way to practice law", but his former client's right.

Note that all I asked was for Van Buren to just step aside COMPLETELY and not ask the judge for ANYTHING on behalf of his new client (opponent of his former client in the same litigation), because THAT REQUEST WAS ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL - twice, coming from an attorney who was not an official attorney of record, and coming from an attorney who was opposing his own former client.  

Note that I did not threaten Van Buren with any referrals, complaints or lawsuits.

I simply asked him to not ask the judge for any adjournments, since he had no right to represent his own client's opponent in the first place, for any reason.

Note that Van Buren tries to pretend that he cares a lot about Judge Burns "coming from Cooperstown" to preside over the case, only to "have to adjourn it".  

Know what?  He didn't have to adjourn anything, since Van Buren was instantly replaced by another attorney, and the trial did happen.

But, Van Buren just tried to have the case adjourned on false pretenses - possibly, trying to keep a part of the (likely giant) fee that he unlawfully charged his client.

How is that about honesty and temperament of a judicial candidates, dear voters?

And here is what Andrew Van Buren told me when I called him out on his tantrum.


He "always" apologizes "when it is warranted". 

Once again, the summary of the story.

A certain client FIRED Andrew Van Buren and, after other previous attorneys, hired me.

I prepared for trial for my client.

Andrew Van, angry at his client for firing him, designed a costly revenge for his client.

Van Buren allowed his client's opponent to hire him, charged her a trial fee (not less than $10,000, and that is a conservative estimate, as far as I know Van Buren's fees), and tried to derail his former client's trial.

When caught red-handed, he started to accuse the attorney who simply asked him not to act against his own former client, of all kinds of - non-existing - mortal sins and refused to apologize, because I am not worth the apology.

GREED CASE #3 (and that's only what I know of, over a short period of time).  Cika v Kellner

A contractor did a remodeling job in a house.  The homeowner refused to pay.

I sued on behalf of the contractor.  Van Buren represented the homeowner.

Van Buren moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that it is subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement.

I opposed the motion and won, so the case was retained by the court.

I filed discovery demands with Van Buren, he did not comply.

The judge (Lambert) called a discovery-pretrial-settlement conference.  My client did not want to settle, and especially when Van Buren's client did not comply with discovery demands.

Before the pre-trial conference, Van Buren told me that his client is not paying him (like he did not pay my client for his work).  At the conference Van Buren started to pressure me into settling the case on terms favorable to his client - and demanded that my client's must pay Van Buren's attorney fees for OPPOSING my client's lawsuit.

I refused.

Van Buren became verbally abusive.

I requested the court attorney (Oursler) handling the conference to put audio recording on (it was in the Grand Jury room where audio recording equipment was installed at that time).  Oursler refused.

Van Buren continued to berate me at the top of his lungs for not settling the case and accusing me and my client of non-existing misconduct.

At the end of the conference I was crying, shaking, my hands were trembling, and I went to a colleague to at least have a witness of my condition after the conference.

I DID turn Andrew Van Buren into attorney discipline for his behavior in this Greed #3 case. 

Being a diligent Becker's student and knowing that by that time Becker has fabricated a child neglect against us (we won a dismissal), a disciplinary case against my husband (he was disbarred) and a disciplinary case against me (still pending at the time), Van Buren decided to fabricate more - with Becker's help.

He complained against me that I FALSELY accused Van Buren of misconduct at the conference, that it was I, and not him, who derailed discovery in the case, and that I was "improperly" refused to settle (and, obviously, to agree that my client must pay Van Buren's attorney fees).

Van Buren claimed that Oursler (who refused to audiotape Van Buren's misconduct) will testify against me as to what was happening in the conference, and that Becker will also come to testify against me on Van Buren's behalf.

That was a year after Van Buren praised Becker during his election campaign to voters and 2 years after he parlayed Becker's threat of (fabricated) criminal prosecution to my husband.

Apparently, Van Buren revealed that he was in a very close friendly relationship with Judge Becker if Becker would agree to come testify on behalf of Van Buren against me.  So much for "I am not beholden to anyone".

In response to Van Buren's fabrication, I pointed out his misbehavior in the conflict of interest Greed #2 case, and THEN Andrew Van Buren LIED EVEN MORE, now to the court - the court never disbarred him for that though (I wonder, why, probably, Becker asked for him).

While Van Buren claimed to me - see e-mail exchange above - that, oops, my mistake, missed conflict of interest, to the Attorney Grievance Committee/Appellate Court Van Buren said something completely different.

He said that he has 

1/ an advance archiving system, PLUS a "court-approved" conflict-checking software!!!

Which only aggravated his misbehavior in the custody case.  The only thing he needed to do was, without stepping into representation of his client, to CHECK his "advanced and court-approved" conflict-checking software and archive to see whether there is a conflict of interest - and say "no" to the prospective client.

By the way, when Van Buren told me that "I am the breath of fresh air" (back in 2009) and berated Becker to me, possibly to get into my confidences ON BECKER's BEHALF, as his messenger boy, to get on the assignment list, at that point Van Buren told me that he actually has 11 disciplinary violations (not shown on his public record though, but that he acknowledged himself).

I wonder what those violations are for.

Here is some of my responses to Van Buren's fabrication after he nearly caused me a heart attack or a stroke trying to get money from my client instead of his own non-paying client (as he usually does - since the stone wall case).

I would like to point out one very important point.  Van Buren did not only try to (knowing that I was under severe stress, when my husband lost his law license due to Becker's and 2 other local sons-of-judges' fabrication, when Becker was after me with sanctions after I sued him for misconduct, when I carried a huge caseload, my husband's and my own, and supported a minor son, who we had to transfer to an out-of-state private school to save him from harassment of Becker's pocket social services department) rattle me to the point of a heart attack - simply to shake money out of my client because his own client did not pay his fees and, thus Van Buren did not want to do discovery or proceed to trial, not being paid.

Van Buren also falsely claimed to the disciplinary authorities that it was I, his victim, who falsely accused him, and he is ready to provide testimony for that of Judge Lambert's court attorney Oursler (never provided), the one who refused to audiotape Van Buren's tantrum, and ready to provide testimony in Van Buren's support of Judge Becker - who was not in that courtroom, but was obviously ready to testify against me no matter in what case.

Moreover, Van Buren tried to claim that it is I who was in need of a "psychological evaluation" - because I did not want to have my client pay for Van Buren's greed, obviously.

It would be a suicide act for Delaware County voters to give this vengeful, greedy and mean drunk who already tried to create fabrications and "diagnose" his opponents as psychos - authority to COURT-ORDER, under the threat of "contempt of court", jail time and fines, psychological evaluations.

He will do it to people out of pure personal revenge.


So, dear Delaware County voters.

I wrote a lot of things criticizing John Hubbard.  I think he is a very bad candidate for a judge, and I stand by my word.

I will post separate articles about John Hubbard's qualifications to become a judge.

Yet, one BIG negative factor John Hubbard definitely lacks, as compared to Van Buren.

GREED to instantly start getting the judicial salary of $210,000 per year.

Andrew Van Buren overcharges the private clients he happens to catch, so private clients are rare - so he resorts to trying to claim attorney fees against his client's opponents, like he did in the stone wall theft case, like he did in Cika v Kellner's case.

Or, he desperately tries to get hired even by his former client's opponents in the same case and hide it hoping that he won't be caught red-handed.

Van Buren otherwise subsists on assigned cases, which pay not much, and only at the end of the case, so he has no cash flow in between, which is bad, especially when you are raising growing children close to college age.

Van Buren's opponent in judicial elections, DA John Hubbard's salary at this time is $201,000.

So, at least one can say about Hubbard that a puny salary increase of 4% cannot be considered as motivated by greed - which is, quite obviously, Van Buren's case.


Do you want a judge who is drunk, mean, vengeful and desperately greedy, with a history of outrageously unethical behavior dictated by greed?

Do you want a judge who would drive a woman to a blood pressure hike behind closed doors, arrange with his buddies not to preserve evidence and then claim that what happened behind those closed doors was exactly the opposite to what his victim claimed?

Just for greed?

Just for personal vengeance? 

Will you feel SAFE with such a judge behind closed doors?

  • Respect for justice;
  • committed to the concept of impartial justice;
  • exudes respect and empathy for his fellow human beings;
  • will hold all in his courtroom to the highest standards of ethics and the law;
  • will make sure that our county court system works first and foremost for us, the people
  • represents people, and represents a breath of fresh air.

These are all arrogant LIES.

Did I also mention that Van Buren is not only mean, and is not only dishonest, and greedy, and vengeful, but is a dishonest, greedy, mean and vengeful DRUNK? 

I have personally smelt alcohol on his breath, at a distance, in court, on many occasions, and I know Andrew Van Buren since 1999, and came to court regularly since that time accompanying my husband first, and then on my own, as an attorney.

Reportedly, he did not stop drinking since we left Delaware County in 2015.  If anything, his drinking has reportedly become worse.

My contacts in the County tell me they see Van Buren, increasingly unkempt, and with increasingly greater number of beer 12-packs.

He looks like a cow chewed him and then spat him out.

A big contrast with the unfailingly clean-cut John Hubbard.

Will you vote for an unethical, dishonest, petty, vengeful, mean drunk with a history disorderly fraudulent conduct who is a danger to women behind the closed doors of unrecorded court conferences - which he will be able to hold aplenty if he becomes a judge?

Would you want to find yourself on the receiving end of a forcible psychological evaluation each time you point out his - inevitable - misconduct?

And note - audio and video recordings are not allowed by court rules in the courthouse.

Van Buren knows it.

And he has a history of using it in his fabrications, and had, as an aid in his fabrications, Judge Becker, the notoriously corrupt judge.  While claiming now to voters that he is "independent", "for the people" and "not beholden to anybody".

As a judge, his fabrications will only become worse and have greater impact upon people.

Do you want such a judge?

Your call.

More on disinformation of voters as the government's condition to practice law and to become a judge in New York and in the US

A lot is being said lately about "disinformation", "misinformation" etc.

The current US President even created a Disinformation Governance Board - conspicuously, 

  • during midterm elections to Congress campaign, 
  • when Democrats' disastrous policies on many matters are driving the country's economy off the cliff, 
  • when Democrats have a reasonable fear to lose their majority in the House, and
  • when there is a possibility that social media giants will not be able to control information going to voters about political candidates in leftist lockstep - like it happened in 2020 (because of a rich "bad boy" Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter).

Little does an average New York State voter knows though that disinformation/misinformation of voters is and has long been the main LICENSING REQUIRMENT of all New York State attorneys.

Here is proof.

This was the state of things in 1880:

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

This is the state of things in 2018 (a NY attorney "temporarily" suspended for criticism of a judge in 2018 - and remains suspended until now):

"As to charges 4 to 6, respondent accused the court of blatant political bias and corruption and disparaged his adversaries. As the Referee found, "[n]either the Code nor the Rules 'obligates,' much less permits, a lawyer to chastise a judge for what the lawyer speculates is corrupt political behavior on that judge's part in presiding over a matter or to effectively threaten the judge that he would be investigated by the Office of Judicial Conduct and the Department of Justice unless he reversed his opinion. Yet Respondent did so repeatedly."

(And, before this case, there were many more cases providing for the same: the lawyer may not exercise his client's 1st and 14th Amendment right to criticize a judge to obtain federal constitutional right of impartial judicial review, it is a "hanging offense" and a professional suicide for a lawyer, notwithstanding that ensuring that their clients' constitutional rights are observed by the government may be the lawyer's professional duty - as Justice Sharwood stated in 1880).

And, criticizing judicial bias and corruption is a hanging offense for a lawyer in New York notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has, without authority, granted absolute immunity for MALICIOUS AND CORRUPT CONFUDCT IN OFFICE to themselves and to all American judges in 1978.

Where there is immunity from lawsuit for corruption, there will be rampant corruption, and there is.  Remember the phrase - "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"?

But, the most knowledgeable witnesses, expert and factual witnesses, of this corruption and/or incompetence of judges, lawyers, are gagged by the convenient self-serving rule of their regulators, judges, requiring lawyers, as the main condition of keeping their licenses and livelihood, TO NOT INFORM VOTERS OF LACK OF QUALIFICATION OR INTEGRITY OF JUDGES AND JUDICIAL CANDIDATES:

Of course, this little rule is completely unlawful from many points.

1.  The rule is unconstitutional

The rule violates the 1st Amendment of the Federal Constitution (which the creators of this rule, New York judges, have sworn to uphold, each and every one of them).

The rule is a very obvious PRIOR RESTRAINT OF POLITICAL SPEECH aimed at information flow to voters regarding certain political candidates, based on the content of that information.

Such prior restraints on speech are PRESUMPTIVELY unconstitutional (according to a long string of US Supreme Court precedents).  Of course, that same US Supreme Court refuses, as a matter of policy, for half a century at least, to address unconstitutional discipline of lawyers based on this rule.

In United States v Alvarez, in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that even false statements may be constitutionally protected, and that this margin of error is necessary for the democracy to exist.

Yet, in the above quoted disciplinary rules created by New York judges for New York lawyers the ability of lawyers to practice their profession is CONDITIONED BY THE GOVERNMENT on LYING BY OMISSION to voters, NOT INFORMING THE VOTERS of what the lawyer may witness of judicial misconduct and misconduct of judicial candidates.   

It is obvious from the Matter of Giorgini quoted above (decision made in 2018, 6 years after and in defiance of Alvarez, 2012) that New York courts are interpreting this rule in their own favor and consider ANY criticism of a judge by a lawyer as "false" and punishable by professional death.

2. The rule is made as a matter of self-interest of the regulator

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a profession regulated by its own members without outside neutral regulator, may be violating federal civil and criminal antitrust laws.

That is a cherry on the cake that the American judiciary would not want to see or apply to its own rule over American attorneys.

It is very obvious that NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL, elected or appointed to represent and act in the best interests of the people and drawing a salary funded by taxpayers, may act IN HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST.

Yet, the rule above is exactly that.

The New York judiciary has legislated (in violation of federal and state requirement for separation of powers) that people may only represent other people in court on a condition that they will keep mum about misconduct of judges and other attorneys (who may become judges in the future).

This is behavior of organized crime, it is obviously illegal.

Note that for some interesting reason the rule does not prohibit lawyers to criticize any other members of the government or candidates for political offices - other than their own regulators, judges.

3. Parallel system of adjudication of what is a false statement against a judge or judicial candidate

How can it even be proven that a lawyer has made a supposedly false statement of fact against a judge or judicial candidate?

Of course, if laws would be followed, then the judge or judicial candidate must SUE the lawyer for defamation.

You know how far this lawsuit will get?

Not very far, for sure.

Because, for over half a century already, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that political figures suing for defamation have an elevated burden of proof.

They must prove NOT ONLY that the statement was false, but that ALSO it was made with a deliberate malice - an impossible standard to meet in cases of political criticism.

So, if judges or judicial candidates SUE lawyers participating in political process and giving to voters negative information about judges and judicial candidates that they have acquired (like Justice Sharwood said back in 1880) by constant attendance in court and by observing that same misconduct every day - they get nothing.

Their case gets dismissed.

Even if the case DOES NOT get dismissed, judges who sue for defamation will expose themselves to discovery, depositions under oath, a trial in front of jury, with embarrassing cross-examination in open court.

NOPE.  Judges do not want to be treated equally with any other person claiming that he/she was defamed.

And, judges do not want to be subjected to THEIR OWN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, the court system - knowing very well how it works.

Instead, judges in the State of New York (and across the country, too) invented for themselves a "separate court system" where rules of defamation and the 1st Amendment does not apply.

They will simply "rule" without any cross-examinations or discovery that whatever the lawyer said in criticism of a judge is bad (not necessarily false) because the lawyer IS NOT ALLOWED TO CRITICIZE A JUDGE for "political bias or corruption" - see Matter of Giorgini again.


Moreover, the judiciary has lobbied an dragged into the New York State Constitution and the New York State legislation a requirement that only those people CAN BECOME JUDGES who were "IN GOOD STANDING"/LICENSED by judges for a certain number of years.

Given that the main condition of being "in good standing" with judges is lack of criticism of those same judges for misconduct in office, political bias and corruption - when a judicial candidate tells voters that he/she has "practiced law" for so many years - that means automatically that he/she DID NOT CRITICIZE JUDGES, his/her own regulators, for misconduct that lawyer may know of, for that same number of years.

Also, when a lawyer publicly PRAISES a judge during the judge's re-election campaign, or praises a lawyer trying to become a judge during an election campaign - that may mean only that the lawyer is trying to get his place under the sun cozied up, and to protect himself and his clients from future potential judicial wrath.

Nothing to do with the actual supposed good qualities of the judicial candidate.

Look how the leftists' darling John Oliver (he is not an attorney, and he is a leftist, so he is safe from such "disciplinary rules") criticized judicial elections back 7 years ago.

Holding aside Oliver's political bias (nearly all supposedly bad judges in the video were Republicans) and lack of knowledge of the law (his discussion regarding Alabama Supreme Court judge Roy More and his stance that U.S. Supreme Court decisions are not part of the Supremacy Clause - they are not - and thus not Supreme law of the land), he makes many valid points about, let's say

THE MAIN PROBLEM with judicial elections and the quality of judges that we receive though, is:

  • that we allow our state Constitutions and state laws to restrict us in who we elect as judges only to the member of the legal profession that is gagged by the judicial mafia into NOT INFORMING voters of the negative qualities of judicial candidates;
  • that we allow the judiciary to regulate lawyers, shooting ourselves in the foot and depriving ourselves, both as information as voters, and of independent representation in court.

The overhaul should be systemic - if we want justice and fairness in the courtroom.

Voters should not be restricted to judicial candidates with a badge of approval by judges - you only enter our brotherhood if you can prove you didn't criticize us for 10 years, this is ridiculous and mafia-like.

And, voters should not believe one word a licensed attorney says in praise of a judge or judicial candidate.

Knowing that this praise is extorted under the gun - praise me, fund my re-election campaign, or lose your profession.

Whenever you see the government trying to "help" voters to "fight disinformation" - know that the government is the exact opposite thing.

Informed voters are a danger to the well-established and well-entrenched "brethren" of different kind "serving the people" at the people's expense and, very often, to our detriment.

Let's at least LEARN and get to KNOW what is happening.

You can't start thinking about how to fix the problem without first realizing what the problem is.

And the problem is - voters in judicial elections in New York and throughout the US are duped, by attorneys' silence and by attorneys' praise under the gun or in expectations of future favorable rulings from that judge.


TALK TO YOUR LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES to repeal restrictions that a judge may only be a lawyer, and a lawyer "in good standing" with judges for a ## of years.

CAMPAIGN to repeal such provisions from your state Constitutions, as a restriction on your right to choose members of your own government.


Seek out your own information, talk to people who appeared in front of judges, who hired that lawyer, look through forums, there is a lot of information available.

Yes, I may have written about it before, but I will write about it again, and again, and again, until people understand what is going on and start campaigning to change it.

We need justice in our courtrooms, not mafia.

Friday, April 29, 2022

Separation of powers? Nah. Meet CONFLATION of power - and stupidity. A Family Court arrest warrant of a specified person, signed by an unknown judge, executed by an unknown officer, for an unspecified violation

Yesterday, New York State Delaware County Sheriff's Office has posted the following on Facebook:

Does anything seem wrong to you in what is described here?

Because if it doesn't, it most definitely should.

Remember why we have separation of government powers into 3 branches?

I don't believe they teach that in schools clearly enough.

It is because those "Founding Fathers" of ours DISTRUSTED integrity of the government and believed that, if the government is not constantly checked upon, the merged executive, legislative and judicial powers will become tyrannical.

The only thing is - their concept of separation of powers was incredibly naive and unworkable.


If the three branches, when/if merged, become an omnipowerful tyranny, why would they be entrusted to "check and balance" on one another?

Because instead of checks and balances - as we see again, and again, and again - we see that same MERGER of these three branches of power, producing tyranny.

Their separation exists only on paper.

Now, let's see again why what Delaware County Sheriff posted is Exhibit A of what I have just said about merger of power and tyranny.

Otsego County Family Court issues an ARREST WARRANT.

For an UNSPECIFIED violation of the Family Court Act.

And, the Delaware County Sheriff obliged and arrested a man whose name they publish, John P. Blackburn, of Kortright, NY, based on that arrest warrant.

Now, what is wrong about that?

Everything is wrong about that.

First, Family Court does NOT have jurisdiction over CRIMINAL proceedings, and, thus, should not be allowed to issue ARREST WARRANTS.

Arrest warrants are exclusively a feature of a criminal proceeding.

If the New York State Legislature gave this power to Family Court judges (and it did), and the Family Court judges, instead of declaring it unconstitutional, use that power, and the Sheriff, instead of refusing to obey an unconstitutional Arrest warrant, goes ahead and arrests a person based on it - AND PUBLISHES HIS NAME IN THE PAPER, damaging his reputation and likely jeopardizing his job, his business relationships etc. - that is, ladies and gentlemen, a MERGER of powers, which results in TYRANNY, in its classical sense.


Second, what kind of crap it is when a person's reputation is PUBLICLY damaged for an arrest for an "UNSPECIFIED" violation of something?

If you publish his name, do the next thing and disclose to the public, WHY, WHAT FOR.

If it is a secret (proceedings in Family Court are private), then, the arrest, is TWICE unlawful - because an arrest can be made only in a PUBLIC, criminal, proceeding.

You publicize the person's name - you publicize the charge, no way around it.

Because privacy of Family Court proceedings were supposed to protect litigants/parties in such proceedings, not judges and not the police catering for such judges.

In this case, the Judge's name who signed the warrant is - UNKNOWN, the officer's name who arrested the person based on that warrant is _ UNKNOWN, but the person's name (who is the ONLY person whose privacy the Family Court Act must protect) is publicized.

We don't know what he did wrong, but people don't get arrested for nothing, is the common line of thinking - isn't it?

So, the GOVERNMENT officials who DID WRONG by issuing and executing this arrest warrant are protected, but the person whose privacy that same Family Court Act is supposed to protect - is exposed.  Everything is topsy-turvy.

Is this what we pay these idiots in the government, all 3 branches, for?

I wonder when people start suing counties for such unlawful actions, and when County Attorneys will take their heads from where they are stuck now to figure out what kind of liability such "arrest warrants" put the County and its taxpayers into.

I will try to get a copy of that arrest warrant through a FOIL request and let my readers know who was the judge who signed it and who was the officer who executed it.  And what exactly the arrest warrant was for.


This announcement practically ACKNOWLEDGES what the government denies and lies to the public about.

Family Court proceedings ARE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS in their nature.

This arrest warrant is definitely not for "CIVIL" contempt of court (the only "civil" proceeding where arrests are allowed).

Because in civil contempts of court the purpose of the arrest is COERCION, not PUNISHMENT FOR A VIOLATION of anything.

Here, the arrest warrant was - as announced by the Sheriff's Office - "for unspecified VIOLATION of the Family Court Act", thus, a punishment, thus, a criminal proceeding.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long ago stated that the government's claim that a certain proceeding is "civil" in nature is not the end of story, the proceeding may still be challenged and declared criminal in nature if certain factors are present.

Later on, the U.S. Supreme Court has simplified the analysis whether a proceeding is civil or criminal in nature and provided a very simple rule:

if civil goals of the proceedings are THE ONLY goals of the proceedings - it is a civil proceeding.

if civil goal of the proceedings are NOT the only goals of the proceedings, and the proceeding ALSO has a purpose of retribution or deterrence (punishment) - they are CRIMINAL proceedings.

With all consequences of a criminal proceeding - requiring constitutional/procedural protections of a criminal proceeding.

And that is the big secret that Delaware County Sheriff has let out in his - stupidly, unlawfully - faithful following of an illegal court order that the Sheriff has proudly and publicly announced on Facebook.

Family Court proceedings are CRIMINAL proceedings in their nature - and, thus, this particular arrestee is entitled to procedural protections in a criminal proceeding - which undoubtedly he will not be given.

This is how tyranny works.

News from Appellate Division 3rd Department on the unlawful salary of Gov Kathy Hochul, conflicted representation of NY AG Letitia James, incompetent unlawful behavior of NYS Comptroller and other exciting topics

Yesterday New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Department has issued a very interesting decision.

That can lead to stripping the current and former Governor and Lt Governor of the State of New York of a good chunk of their salaries, as unconstitutionally received.

Here is the decision in full.

The decision leads one to raise interesting questions.

First, State Comptroller took an oath of office to uphold the State Constitution.

The NYS Legislature's sweetheart declaration raising salaries of Gov. Cuomo and Lt Gov. Hochul mid-term THREE TIMES was contrary to the text of the New York State Constitution (a separate issue is what New Yorkers are paying, through their collective noses, to NYS Legislature's legal department that allowed this declaration to go through).

A trick question - what has prevented the Chief financial officer of the State of New York to "just say no" and refuse to obey an obviously unconstitutional order of the State Legislature?

His career was more important than his oath of office, obviously.

Second, note WHO represents the defendant who illegally paid out salary increases knowing they are unconstitutional (any accountant would have been fired for THAT, not for disobeying that unlawful order.)

It is the pre-eminent NY AG Letitia James who portrays herself on social media and in leftstream media that she is defender of New Yorker's rights and enforcer of the law (while OPPOSING New Yorker's civil rights lawsuits in court, see

Here she also defend one violator of the law, a high-ranking violator, too.

And three - TA-DA, and note that this comes from the court that is also an ATTORNEY LICENSING/REGULATING authority in that same area.

The interesting conundrum is that, by the licensing rules of the App Div 3rd, Letitia James should have been stripped of her law license a long time ago for representing people with conflicting, often, opposing, interests, in the same litigation.

Yet, App Div 3 calmly state in the decision that Letitia James may do just that.


Because EVERY SINGLE JUDGE of the App Div 3 is ALSO Letitia James client - and she will vigorously defend them if they themselves are sued for some unconstitutional behavior.

Reducing both the value of the oath of office that every single one of these "public servants" give - and the licensing rules of attorney ethics, exactly to 0.

Graft wins - every single time.

3 times is a charm? 2 judges in a row in Delaware County, NY (and bosom friends, too) ran from the bench mid-term. Will the 3rd member of the team be as "lucky"?

In 2015, Delaware County/Family/Surrogate's Court judge Carl F. Becker, just 2.5 years into his 2nd, much coveted, term, suddenly "retired".

While chased by the New York State Commission for Judicial Conduct, the State Comptroller and the FBI.

Witnesses report that what chased him from the bench was so bad that Becker would sneak out for lunch, withdraw cash at a Bank of Delhi ATM, cross the street to the Shire Pub and drink his lunch.  Often.

I imagine how sad it is for the now-Delaware County public defender Joe Ermeti who has taken off his candidacy for the County Judge seat in 2012 to "allow his party to win" (that's what he said in an interview when he announced his candidacy in 2021) - when "his party's" candidate so ingloriously folded in just 2.5 years' time.


In November of 2015 Becker's bosom friend Richard Northrup became the judge.

In October of 2021 though, 6 years into his 1st, much-coveted, term, Northrup runs from the bench, too.  

From a $210,000 a year salary and tremendous power.

The only thing that usually gets them off is an imminent and likely threat of a criminal prosecution, and such a threat arises for judges only when they did something really, really, really bad. and only when the feds are chasing them.

Because otherwise - who would be chasing Judge Northrup?  

His bosom friend DA John Hubbard who refused to criminally prosecute for forgery, solicitation of forgery, filing false instrument and a number of other crimes - his former law partner Carl Becker when Becker forged the certificate of election for his 1st term, filing it, with forged signatures, 9 years after election when all proof of election was gone - and only after being challenged in a motion as being not a judge, but an impostor? 

I personally spoke to Hubbard about the charges, and all he could bleat was - "why do you need that, Tanya"? 

Now Becker's former law partner John Hubbard is running for the same position (defense attorney Andrew Van Buren runs, too, but is unlikely to win, given the powerful support of the local establishment Hubbard is getting in these elections).  

Hubbard is part and parcel of the same team and, no doubt, had a finger in the same shenanigans that likely drove his two predecessors off the bench.  I am personally aware of some of them.

And, the eternal self-pushover-"for the party" Joe Ermeti has, once again, first announced his candidacy for the judicial elections in 2022, and once again took his candidacy off to let now John Hubbard go forward.  

When he let Becker win in 2012 (and did a couple of other things, I will write about them in further articles of this series), he's got his current Delaware County Public Defender's position.

When he stepped aside for John Hubbard, he, reportedly, was offered a deal to get John Hubbard's position as the District Attorney (we will see if reports are true shortly).

I wonder for how long Joe Ermeti's "sacrifice"-for-candy will last this time, for how long Hubbard will be able to keep on the bench once he grabs it.

I have a funny feeling the FBI file on Hubbard is as long as for his previous loved bosses and mentors...

We will wait and see, won't we?